Prabhupāda: I think I may remember. There is economist professor, Marshall? Marshall's economics?
Prof. Surface: Yes.
Prabhupāda: You know him? You must be knowing. I think he gives definition of economic impetus: family affection. I was also a student of economics in my student life, Scottish Churches College. So we had to read this Marshall economics, I think. That definition, that what is the economic impetus, why people want to earn money? So the reason he gives: due to some family affection. Am I right?
Prof. Surface: I didn't get the last part of the sentence.
Prabhupāda: Hmm?
Prof. Surface: I didn't understand the last part.
Prabhupāda: Family affection.
Brahmānanda: Family affection is the impetus for economic . . .
Prabhupāda: Development.
Prof. Surface: Oh, yes.
Prabhupāda: Yes. So he is dependent on the family affection. Then economic impetus go on. And I think he has given another proposition that if man can easily live, then he will not work. That is the nature of man. Therefore a rich man's son, he does not work, because he has father's money he can spend. In America the boys are rich man's son, and therefore so many boys are not working. They have got easy income, and they are not working. And because there is no proper work, they are becoming hippies. They are manufacturing independence. "Idle brain is a devil's workshop." This human psychology is the same everywhere. In India many rich men's son, until he has spoiled his father's whole money, he is restless. And when he is turned to a beggar, then he is satisfied. I have seen many, spoiling father's money like anything. And the same man, when he is beggar in the street, he feels happy.
I shall quote one statement of a very big man, politician, Mr. C. R. Das. So he died in 1925. He was about our father's age. So he was earning in those days fifty thousand rupees per month. Fifty thousand . . . our rupee or dollar, the same, although exchange value is different. But the . . . locally, the purchasing capacity is the same. So he and his wife were sitting on the corridor, and the wife was talking that "Why you are so morose always? You are earning like anything. You have got respect as political leader. Everyone likes you. You have no want. Why you are sorry? How you can become happy? What is your program?" So on the street one mendicant was going on. He said: "I want to become like that mendicant; then I will be happy." And at last, he became like that.
So sometimes one who is possessing more than required, he wants to become a beggar again. So I repeatedly say this to American boys, that "By the grace of God you are very much opulent materially. So if you don't take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then you will have to become beggar again." Because we know these two things—sometimes beggar, sometimes rich; sometimes beggar, rich . . . we do not know third way. Renouncing and possessing. But both these two things are wrong, because you haven't got anything, so what you can renounce? Just like this morning I came here, and they have given me this room to stay. And if I say next morning, "I renounce this," the question will be, "When you possessed this room that you are renouncing?" And if I say: "I possess it," that is also wrong, because somebody has given me this apartment to live for some time. So where I possessed, and how I renounced? But we know these two things only. Sometime we possess. Economic development means to possess. And to become hippie means you renounce. We know these two things. But we cannot possess; we cannot renounce. That is real knowledge.